MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413952986 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2025)842

Timing of flowering affects pollination of Viburnum edule in Alaskan boreal forest

2025· article· en· W4413952986 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kara Kornhauser, Christa P. H. Mulder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest Research StationU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Forest ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPollinationBiologyViburnumTaigaPollenBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flowering time in Alaskan boreal forest is advancing, and this may affect pollination rates of early-flowering species. Viburnum edule is one of the first understory plants to flower, when pollinator diversity and abundance are likely lower than later in the season. We evaluated the impact of flowering time on pollen deposition and composition of the pollinator community over two years (one in which plants flowered slightly earlier than average and one in which flowering time was close to average) using experimental arrays with branches that flowered either at the start or the peak of flowering for each year. Pollinator exclusion reduced fruit set by > 90%, but even plants freely pollinated by insects had fruit set rates of < 10%. Both within and across years, plants that flowered later had more insect visitors and higher proportions of stigmas visited (> 5 pollen grains per stigma); in the advanced year, plants that flowered later also had more pollen grains per stigma. Syrphid flies, solitary bees, and muscid flies constituted ~ 99% of visitors, with a higher proportion of syrphid flies for later-flowering plants within and across years. Despite evidence for potential pollen limitation, pollen loads for the earliest flowering plants were high (mean > 25 pollen grains per stigma). Fruit production in V. edule is likely limited by inefficient pollen transfer between genets, by resource availability, or both. Given the prevalence of syrphid and muscid flies as pollinators, we need a better understanding of what triggers emergence in these taxa to evaluate the potential for trophic mismatches in boreal forest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207